The Instigator
jc1996
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
QueenDaisy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 313 times Debate No: 103401
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jc1996

Pro

Consummation, by definition, is the act of making a marriage or a romantic relationship complete by having sexual intercourse. [1]

It is necessary for a couple to make their relationship official by making love for each other because it is the highest form, as stated in Sternberg"s triangular theory of love, represented by the highest point in the middle of the triangle. Consummate love is a combination of a relationship with intimacy, passion, and commitment. [2]

According to him, couples with this kind of love have great sexual drive fifteen or more years into their relationship, they cannot imagine themselves happier over the long-term with anyone else, they overcome their few difficulties gracefully, and each having their delight in the relationship. In theory itself, consummate love is that love associated with "a picture perfect couple". [3]

Without consummate love, that relationship has no moral completeness and passed out. Some couples who didn"t have sex could end up in a breakup. For a relationship to be official, the couple should show a display of affection to each other, whether publicly or privately, because if they commit to each other while they"re young, intimacy grows fonder as they keep on getting closer. Besides, even if the couple isn"t married, they consummate to themselves because they are mature enough to express their passion through affection. In short, the transition from "just friends" to "friends with benefits" to "a picture perfect couple" can be achieved through sexual intimacy.

[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[3] "Cupid's Arrow - the Course of Love through Time" by Robert Sternberg. Publisher: Cambridge University Press (1998) ISBN 0-521-47893-6
QueenDaisy

Con

My case will be as follows:
1) Though the majority of people do require sex in order to feel fully satisfied in a romantic relationship, there exist exceptions- most noticeably, in asexual individuals and those who practise polyamory.
2) If a romantic relationship is entirely dependent on sex to exist, then the relationship is inherently limited, and is unlikely to last anyway.
3) Sternberg's research indicates that those couples with close romantic connections after fifteen years are likely to have a high sexual drive, but it does not conclusively demonstrate that the latter causes the former.

So, to commence arguing:
1: Exceptions to requiring sexuality to feels satisfied:

An asexual person is anyone who never, or very rarely, experiences sexual attraction. This is separate from someone who is not interested in romance, who would be considered aromantic. A quote from an asexual individual named "Sophie":

"I don't find sex and love to be at all connected. It just confuses me, this idea that they have to be,"

(See source 1).

Another example:

"Sexual people often equate dating and intimacy.

Sometimes people assume asexual people don"t form intimate relationships. This is very wrong, and a limiting perspective, David believes. 'Intimacy is a much bigger and more beautiful thing than this box that you put it in.' "

(See source 2).

So, then, asexual people are an example of a group of people who do not require sexual activity in order to feel satisfied in a romantic relationship. Their existence, therefore, directly contradicts the claim that: "A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.", in that there are those who do not require sexual consummation in order to enjoy and maintain a romantic relationship.

Another community whose existence directly demonstrates the falsehood of the motion is the polyamorous community- those who either date, or sleep with (or both) multiple partners, where all partners are aware of, and comfortable with, the situation (hence polyamory is not the same as sexual infidelity).

Some polyamorous people have sex primarily with an individual other than their primary romantic partner. For instance, I was once sexually involved with someone who was only romantically interested in another person, but not me. He said to his romantic partner:

"I f*cking love you, and I love f*cking her*"

[*i.e. me]

So, as exampled by a previous sexual partner of my own, it is perfectly possible to have a purely romantic relationship with someone while satisfying one's sexual desires elsewhere. Though this might not be what most people typically do, it is, once again, a direct counterexample to the idea that "A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary." in that it allows someone with sexual desires to exist in a purely romantic relationship and still remain satisfied.

2:

This point is pretty short and obvious, but if a romantic relationship can only be sustained in the presence of a sexual relationship, then it seems likely that the romance itself is flawed. If you sincerely love someone, then that love is not wholly dependent on sexual activity. Sure, sex is a nice bonus, but if your romantic relationship breaks down when sex is taken out of the equation, then the romantic relationship was itself flawed and doomed to failure anyway.

3:

So, the old correlation-causation issue. It is not clear, from Sterberg's research, that having a sexual active relationship actually improves how satisfied someone is romantically with that same person. It seems likely that the reverse could be true- that being satisfied romantically with one's partner causes one to be more likely to have pleasurable and frequent sex.

So, to summarise my case so far:

1) Though the majority of people do require sex in order to feel fully satisfied in a romantic relationship, there exist exceptions- most noticeably, in asexual individuals and those who practise polyamory.
2) If a romantic relationship is entirely dependent on sex to exist, then the relationship is inherently limited, and is unlikely to last anyway.
3) Sternberg's research indicates that those couples with close romantic connections after fifteen years are likely to have a high sexual drive, but it does not conclusively demonstrate that the latter causes the former.

Sources:
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
2) http://everydayfeminism.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jc1996

Pro

As my counter-argument on the Contender"s second case, a romantic relationship entirely dependent on sex to exist can last longer because not only did that relationship enter intimacy, but also rejuvenate passion and reaffirms the commitment to get even closer. In fact, America"s viewpoint on women and sex has been given claims since the formulation of Sternberg"s theory. Society tells us that premarital sex is immoral according to the evangelical standpoint, and women who have that kind are being conceived to sin.

However, when she got married to the man she truly loves; sex has turned into an amazing experience because that is already the completion of an amorous relationship. Jill Filipovic of The Guardian explains the reasons why the attitude about premarital sex is hindering happiness, and how embracing sex is beneficial not just for a relationship, but also to the society as a whole, saying that "denouncing premarital sex and promoting abstinence are not working, and loving relationships are made through intimacy." [1]

Consummation, even before marriage, is beneficial because of the following: [2]

1. People who have sex are happier, as long as their relationship grows fonder.
2. Sex is healthy and natural because humanity is almost certainly the result of a sexual union.
3. Premarital sex leads to more stable and long-lasting marriages.
4. Sex feels great, increasing the emotional pressure towards affection and pleasure.
5. Sex is good, whether married or not, and waiting until marriage tends to high divorce rates.
6. Premarital sex has been accepted by Western societies since the 1960s.
7. Sexual compatibility matters in relationships.
8. Discouraging people from having premarital sex has never been recorded in human history.

In summary of these, consummation through intercourse is necessary in order for that relationship to be whole so that by the time the couple gets married, their development towards them increases as they tend to go steady in making their plans, and if my opponent thinks that it is wrong, it is very inconceivable to think that it is the only way to define what "relationship goals" is.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com...
[2] http://jezebel.com...
QueenDaisy

Con

My opponent has not addressed my first, and most important, point- that there exist those (notably asexual individuals and those who practice polyamory) who do not require sexual consummation with their romantic partner in order to remain satisfied in a romantic relationship. Unless my opponent can refute this point, the motion must be considered to have failed, as the existence of such individuals directly contradicts the notion that romantic relationships necessarily require sexual consummation in order to be maintained.

Pro also needs to respond to my third point, and establish that it's having higher sexual activity which causes couples to be happier, rather than couples being happier together which causes more sexual activity.

I feel I didn't expand further on the remarks I have already made at this point, and as such, my case rests for this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jc1996

Pro

Well, my opponent cannot address the fact that consummation is necessary because the definition of a romantic relationship can be summed up into three words: intimacy, passion, and commitment. If she said that there are some couples who do not require sexual consummation with their romantic partner in order to remain satisfied in a romantic relationship, she must have meant that she ignored sexual intimacy in the equation, leading to the so-called "fatuous love", exemplified by courtship and marriage.

She challenged me to respond to her third standpoint, establishing that it's having higher sexual activity which causes couples to be happier. Well, there are specifically reasons for that and science proves it: revitalizing the immune system, boosting libido, improving women"s bladder control, lowering the blood pressure, counting it as exercise, lowering the risk of cardiovascular diseases, lessening pain, decreasing chances of likelihood of prostate cancer, improving sleep, and easing stress. [1]

Going back to what I said in Round 2, premarital sex, or consummation before marriage, has been accepted by Western societies since the 1960s. The only ones who argue that it is immoral and morally unacceptable are secular conservative nations, especially in predominant Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan, and Palestine, while many Western nations viewed it as acceptable regardless of religion. In my country, which is one of the two Roman Catholic nations in Asia, 71% view it as immoral while 20% did not. In your country, 30% disapprove it while 29% approve. The countries which mostly believe that it is morally acceptable are from EU member states like United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the two predominant Roman Catholic countries on that list, Spain and Italy. [2]

So, consummation before marriage can either be morally right or wrong. However, we are already in the 21st century, and more couples are doing it in order to experience sexual expression towards one another, because if they don"t, they might end up in a breakup or in a divorce. Sexual expression is the universal need of all people, and it is a moral right and obligation.

I refute on her point, I rest my case for this round, but my opponent insists that the motion is failed. Isn"t it the case that in all fun and games of stating opinions backed up by factual evidences, the motion will fail if she repeats her "case" all over again, and she loses steam when it comes to defending my arguments?
Perhaps she should think twice before I continue to do this all over again, defending what is right and what is necessary.

[1] http://www.webmd.com...
[2] http://www.pewglobal.org...
QueenDaisy

Con

Pro's definition of a romantic relationship: "intimacy, passion, and commitment" does not exclude non-sexual romantic relationships, in that not all intimacy is sexual. Like most definitions, the following definition of intimacy does not require it to be sexual:

"a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group."

[See source 3]

For example, cuddling with someone is intimate, but not sexual.

If Pro axiomatically defines romance as necessarily requiring sexual intimacy, then this is a begging the question fallacy [see source 4]- Pro is assuming all romance is sexual in an attempt to demonstrate that all romantic relationships require sexuality.

Pro lists a bunch of benefits to being sexually active, but does not demonstrate that being sexually active directly causes an individual's romantic relationship to be stronger. Indeed, all of the benefits listed by Pro would also come to someone practising sexual infidelity, but that would be considered extremely bad for one's romantic relationship.
Hence, it does not follow from Pro's statements that romantic relationships necessarily require sexual consummation.

I will repeat my main argument- that the existence of asexual individuals who still participate in romantic relationships, or polyamorous individuals who do not primarily have sexual relations with their primary romantic partner, are both direct contradictions to the notion that it is necessary to consummate a romantic relationship through sexual activity.

The rest of Pro's statements are irrelevant to the motion, since it is on whether it is necessary to consummate romantic relationships sexually, rather than on whether or not premarital sex is beneficial, which is a separate issue entirely.

My case for R3 rests.

Sources:
[3]: http://www.dictionary.com...
[4]: http://grammarist.com...
Debate Round No. 3
jc1996

Pro

My opponent denied the fact about sexual consummation, but she cannot elaborate further to support her notion that that the existence of asexual or polyamorous individuals, are both direct contradictions to the notion that it is necessary to consummate a romantic relationship through sexual activity. Also, she doubled down the argument that all of the benefits I stated in Round 3 are extremely bad for one"s romantic relationship. Perhaps she ignored the fact that couples who don"t consummate could lead to higher divorce rates.

Let"s have another one, so that my opponent can think twice. This time, from Hilda Hutcherson, M.D., Columbia University professor of obstetrics and gynecology, where she enumerates how consummation is beneficial for a young couple and those are as follows: less stress, sounder sleep, minimized pain, fewer colds, a youthful glow, lighter periods with fewer cramps, and a more toned body. [1]

We are in the age of globalization, social media, and online dating, and more couples tend to have intimacy to each other while they have the passion to commit themselves. Whether married or not, they have the fulfillment to submit themselves to one another. The arguments in both Round 2 and 3 are based on scientific standpoint, but there are other reasons why, and it is on the Biblical standpoint, stated in Chapter 7 of Songs of Solomon, wherein the completeness of a romantic relationship can be interpreted by submission for both married and pre-married couples. [2]

As summarized in a more comprehensive way, the bride and the groom have more words of praise for each other, because love is an endless fountain of inspiration for a stable relationship, despite the ups and downs. In verses 1-9, the groom puts every figurative language to describe how attractive the bride is not just by the purity of her heart, but also by its appearance. Natural imagery abounds as her beauty is linked to the landscape. He describes the bride as "stately as a palm tree" and says he will "climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches" (7:7). In short, he metaphorically described the bride through intimacy.

The groom says with passion through his heart, that the bride"s kisses are like "the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth" (7:9), and in her response to the groom, she will "give you my love" (7:12). In Hebrew, the exact word is dodim, and it means lovemaking, which concludes that consummation is necessary for the completion of a romantic relationship.

I rest my case for Round 4.

[1] http://www.womenshealthmag.com...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://www.shmoop.com...
QueenDaisy

Con

"My opponent denied the fact about sexual consummation, but she cannot elaborate further to support her notion that that the existence of asexual or polyamorous individuals, are both direct contradictions to the notion that it is necessary to consummate a romantic relationship through sexual activity."

One would think this was obvious, but very well, I shall expand on this point further:

Asexual individuals do not experience sexual attraction, and most of them do not participate in sexual activity. They are, however, perfectly capable of maintaining romantic relationships. As such, the existence of asexual individuals demonstrates that it is possible for one to maintain a romantic relationship without consummating it through sexual activity.

Polyamorous people sometimes have romantic partners they are not sexually active with- for example, if they are dating an asexual individual but still satisfy their sexual desires elsewhere, or if they have one partner they are more romantic towards and another they are more sexual towards. As such, they, too, are examples of individuals who maintain romantic relationships despite little, or no, sexual contact with their romantic partner.

"Perhaps she ignored the fact that couples who don"t consummate could lead to higher divorce rates."

I recognise that there are individuals who are only capable of maintaining a romantic relationship with someone they are also sexually involved with. I'm not trying to deny that. However, it's not *necessary* to consummate all romantic relationships through sexual activity, as there exist many people who are perfectly happy not to. As such, the motion fails.

I couldn't find anything else relevant to the motion in Pro's R4 speech. Hence, no further argument in this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jc1996

Pro

"I recognize that there are individuals who are only capable of maintaining a romantic relationship with someone they are also sexually involved with. I'm not trying to deny that. However, it's not necessary to consummate all romantic relationships through sexual activity, as there exist many people who are perfectly happy not to. As such, the motion fails."

The truth is, couples who found intimacy at each other consummate their relationship by sexual intercourse because it would strengthen their relationship even more once they encounter it, so that by the time of their marriage, sex is an experience and love is a wonderful thing. In fact, intimacy towards one another fills with passion that for every caress they made, their heart grows fonder and their drive intensifies so that they complete their relationship through lovemaking.

For five rounds of a duel between a man and a woman for the integrity of young love, I stood in with every single argument, scientifically and morally, stating the truth about romantic relationships and how it is completed through consummation, but she continues to deny the facts of life and jumping to conclusions that the motion fails by stating the reality for polyamorous and asexual couples, as well as her arguments that sex isn"t necessary. Perhaps, she spends too much time stating the arguments which, in reality, the motion she fought for has failed. She said that she could not find anything else relevant to the motion which I stand, but little she did not know is that I stand for what is right, what is necessary, and what matters, stating the reality and separating it from the fiction which she continues to refute that such evidence.

Isn"t it the case that in this debate for the consummation of young couples, she swung with arguments which could make mine irrelevant, but she missed because she cannot deny the truth that I stand for?

I have nothing to say anything further, but I encourage the members of this community to make that choice between Pro that fights for young love and young romance and Con that continues to spill the arguments, yet she does not back up with counterclaims to question it. With that, I rest my case for this debate and I cannot wait to see if Con has enough energy left to look at all of my arguments before she jumps into conclusions.
QueenDaisy

Con

Once again, the existence of asexual and polyamorous individuals directly demonstrates the falsehood of the notion that it is necessary for couples to consummate romantic relationships sexually.

Pro's main argument seems to have been studies demonstrating that there are some individuals for which sexual activity correlates with (but doesn't necessarily cause) being more satisfied in the relationship.

While this may be true, this is completely irrelevant- imagine the motion being discussed was: "It is necessary that birds are capable of flight"- all I'd need to do, as Con, is demonstrate that there are birds which are not capable of flight (ostriches, penguins etc.). Likewise, in this case, all I need to do is point out that there are some individuals who do not find it necessary to consummate their romantic relationships sexually. Hence, it is not inherently necessary to consummate romantic relationships sexually. Case closed.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.